The Client was stopped for speeding, and upon making contact with her, a deputy believed that she may be impaired by alcohol. The Deputy requested she perform field sobriety exercises, which she did, but allegedly performed poorly on. Subsequently she was arrested and taken to the Breath Alcohol Testing facility where she gave a breath sample almost three times the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the video, which was supposed to capture the Client's allegedly poor sobriety exercises, was obstructed by the fact that the Deputy had such a dirty windshield. As a result only a faint outline of the Client simply standing still could be seen. In addition, the Deputy took almost two hours two get her to the Breath Alcohol Testing facility. The Firm argued that this caused her to breath sample reading to increase to the level that was given. Overall the Firm argued that a poor investigation, combined with the inefficiency with which law enforcement processed the Client, gave cause for the DUI to be dismissed. The State agreed and dismissed the DUI.
The Client was discovered sitting in her vehicle on the side of the interstate. Upon discovering the Client the Officer believed she was impaired and did a DUI investigation. The DUI investigation revealed that the Client had difficulty performing the sobriety exercises. The Client was arrested and gave a breath sample almost twice the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the Client was extremely cooperative with law enforcement, had no prior criminal history, and there could be an argument that the stop or detention of her vehicle was improper. Based upon these factors the State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
The defendant was charged with DUI. He was stopped for weaving in and out of his lane. Once stopped the officer noticed signs of impairment and stated that the Defendant did not perform well on the fieldside sobriety exercises. It took the officer over two hours to get the driver to a breathalyzer machine where once he blew the reading was over the legal limit. The firm filed motions to suppress the DUI investigation as well as the breath result as it took too long to be reliable. The State agreed to drop the DUI charges.
The Client was discovered with her vehicle half in traffic blocking the travel lane and with the ignition running. Law enforcement suspected the she was impaired and had her submit to field sobriety exercises. The Client then performed poorly on the exercises and was taken to the Breath Alcohol Testing facility, where she gave a breath sample that was almost three times the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that there was an error in the breath machine testing results. As a result the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle at an intersection. The Officer that investigated the case believed the Client was impaired by alcohol and requested he submit to field sobriety exercises. The Client then performed poorly on the exercises and was arrested for DUI. Once arrested the Client gave a breath sample almost twice the legal limit. The Firm investigated the case and discovered that the Client was extremely cooperative with law enforcement, had a totally clean criminal history, and there was an argument with respect to whether a jury would agree that the Client was in actual physical control of his vehicle while he was asleep. Given those circumstances, the State agreed to dismiss the DUI.
The Client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle at an intersection by law enforcement. The Officer determined that the Client may be impaired and asked him to submit to roadside sobriety exercises, which the Client then performed poorly on. The Client was then arrested for DUI and gave a breath sample almost twice the legal limit when he arrived at the jail. The Firm argued that there could be an issue establishing that the Client was impaired when he was in actual physical control of the vehicle, or in other words when he was awake, since no one actually saw if he was impaired when he was actually driving, and he wasn't just tired as it was in the middle of the night. In addition, the Firm discovered that the Client was cooperative and had a lack of any prior criminal history. The State agreed to dismiss the DUI charge.
Client ran his jeep off the road into a ditch. When police arrived, he was attempting to change a flat tire that was a result of the accident. The officers noticed he was unsteady and smelled alcohol on his breath. He was asked to perform field sobriety exercises and complied. The officers arrested him as they felt he was impaired and did not perform well on the exercises. At the station, our client blew .17 (over twice the legal limit).
Our firm filed a motion arguing that the vehicle running off the road is not a crash by definition and no witness could place our client behind the wheel. After we won the motion, the State dropped the case.
The Defendant was seen by a DUI officer driving on Military Trail and was swerving in and out of his lanes. This was captured on video. After drifting in and out of his lane a few times, the officer stopped the defendant. The officer noticed that the Defendant was dazed and disoriented as he spoke and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He smelled like alcohol and his speech was slow and slurred. His movements were also slow and when standing he was swaying noticeable forward and back. When asked how much he had to drink he said “not much.” He then changed his story to “nothing at all to drink” and that the odor of alcohol was from his inhaler for asthma. During the walk and turn exercise, he continually tried to start it without being told and then took 9 steps backwards instead of turning around and walking straight. During the finger to nose, the officer moved the Defendant close to the camera and the defendant can be seen swaying significantly and missing his nose every time. The Defendant was arrested and nasty to the officer during the patrol ride to the jail which was all captured on video. At the jail, the Defendant refused to submit to a breath test after being read implied consent. The Firm filed a motion to suppress arguing that the stop was illegal. Additionally, the firm pointed out to the State of Florida that there was a news camera crew on scene during roadsides and can be seen on the roadside video circling the defendant. The Defendant could be seen glancing at the news camera crew on multiple occasions. After pointing this out to the State Attorney's Office, and on the date of the motion to suppress, the State dismissed the charges for DUI.
On January 30, 2017, a Hillsborough County Deputy conducted a traffic stop after he observed a substance being thrown form the driver’s window. The Deputy believed the substance to be a clear baggie with a green leafy substance. The Deputy approached the Defendant who was in the driver’s seat. The Defendant had slurred speech, glassy/watery eyes, and an odor of an alcoholic beverage. The Defendant was then asked to exit the vehicle and read her Miranda rights, which she waived. The Defendant admitted to 4 rum and cokes. She performed poorly on field sobriety exercises and was arrested for DUI. The Defendant provided a breath sample of .092 and .089.
Result: the firm filed a motion to suppress and the State dropped the DUI charge.
Our client was traveling down the road late at night when he rear ended the vehicle in front of him. After the police arrived to investigate the crash, the officers noticed our client swaying and the odor of alcohol from his breath. Our client admitted to consuming a few beers prior to driving. The officers requested our client perform field sobriety exercises and our client refused. The officers arrested our client and transported him to the jail where he would eventually supply breath samples of .303 and .313, nearly 4 times the legal limit. Our attorneys reviewed the crash report and body camera video and filed a motion to suppress and exclude evidence based on errors made by the arresting officer during the investigation. Prior to the start of the hearing, the State agreed to drop the DUI charge.
While conducting selective enforcement and pursusant to a saturation patrol, the Defendant was stopped for traveling 17 miles above the posted speed limit. The Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol coming from his mouth, his speech was thick and slurred, and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He admitted that he was coming from a concert and was lethargic while locating them. The officer could not understand the Defendant because of his low and slurred speech. He was slow to exit his vehicle and had to use both of his hands to assist himself in getting out. When out of the car, he was swaying side to side. When asked to walk around the vehicle, the officer observed the Defendant lose his balance. He denied consuming any alcohol and refused to perform roadsides. After being arrested, he refused to give a sample of his breath. After reviewing the case, the State declined to file any charges against the Defendant.
On November 9, 2016, the Defendant was involved in a crash. A Florida Highway Trooper arrived on the scene and began a DUI investigation. The Defendant had to be transported to Tampa General Hospital as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. While in the hospital, the Trooper issued the Defendant a careless driving and DUI ticket. The Defendant refused to provide a breath or blood sample.
The State Attorney’s Office in December 2017 issued a subpoena for the medical records of any blood alcohol testing done by Tampa General Hospital when the Defendant was treated for his injuries. The Defendant then retained the firm to assist him after an information was filed charging him with DUI with property damage involving a blood alcohol level over .15.
Results: The firm filed a motion for discharge of the DUI charge which was granted. The DUI was dismissed.
